search
top

Something To Think About

This didn’t work. So why is passing a federal ban the answer?

8 Responses to “Something To Think About”

  1. Gerald says:

    I accidently left this comment on another post, but this is the correct place: The gun banner mantra is, “If at first it doesn’t work, do it bigger.”

  2. Calimero says:

    Plus: it’s never about public safety (or even “the children !”), it’s all about preventing those lowly peasants (formerly known as ‘citizens’) from having their freedom-supporting devices.

    Brady & all are anti-freedom. Being anti-gun is just one of the many avatars of the anti-freedom crowd.

    We have the same lunatics here in Europe …

    Though it will be of no direct use to me (I’m French and live in France), I joined the NRA tonight to show my support to you guys.

    Never give up. Never let any doubt cross your mind: your are right, they are dead wrong ! You’re not “just” fighting for your guns, you’re fighting for the very idea of Liberty !

  3. jkp says:

    You’re right.

    But….

    If I were a gun-grabber, I would object to your argument by stating that the problem was in the writing of the bill. The law should simply name the rifles that ARE permitted (to be amended as needed). There! “Common Sense” gun control!

    I don’t disagree with your intent, but I just don’t think it’s as much of a slam-dunk argument as I’d like.

    Whether this would be constitutional or not is an open question….but the Court might sustain such a measure — Scalia left quite a bit of wiggle room in Heller, and all it would take would be for Roberts to switch. (Yes, I think it would be Roberts, not Kennedy, who would flip, in light of the ACA decision.)

  4. Padre says:

    Here in NY Gov. Cuomo is saying that our AWB is too full of loopholes, and said the grandfathering of magazines manufactured before 1994 is an obvious omission. How a more complete ban would be enforced, save with massive invasions of privacy and countless law enforcement man-hours is beyond me. But it appears that they’ve adopted the strategy ‘Go big or go home’.

  5. NotClauswitz says:

    That looks a lot like Claifornia and basically it doesn’t work here either. Time has proved that these various “tests” are failures and people are adaptive and get around them, and “going bigger” will only scale-up the whole budgetary and bureaucratic language mess.

  6. Andy says:

    Not like it seems to matter what the law is. Why, just earlier this year it was noted that mass shootings have actually not been increasing over time.

    http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html

    Hope that helps someone.

  7. dg1013 says:

    Because true faith can never be swayed by facts or logic.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » How effective would X gun law be at stopping a mass shooting? - [...] very. Truth is, there’s very little we can do about mass murder. Connecticut’s assault weapon ban didn’t work. And …
top